Introduction

In January 1972 A film entitled A Clockwork Orange appeared in the
Warner West End Cinema in Leicester Square. Billed as "being the adventure
of a young man whose principal interests are rape, ultra-violence and
Beethoven", it was clear this would be no ordinary film. It proceeded to
ignite a serious controversy that penetrated all sections of society in a
way that was unprecedented in the history of cinema in Britain. Its
depiction of a young gang of anarchist hooligans raping, mugging and
vandalising their way through a futuristic dystopian Britain caused
outrage and significant attention. During the sixty-one weeks that it
played to the British public, it preoccupied the attention of politicians,
the media, the church, the so-called protectors of morality as well as the
youth, police and local authorities of towns up and down the country
before its director, Stanley Kubrick, in the face of this pressure finally
banned the film from public exhibition.

Who was affected most by A Clockwork Orange? Why was it such a
sensation, and should it have been banned?

A Clockwork Orange inspired a variety of responses from different
members of British society. John Trevelyan, Chairman of The British Board
of Film Classification (1956-71), who passed the film with an "X"
certificate said it was "...an important social document of outstanding
brilliance and quality".[1] On the other hand according to the
spokesperson of the so-called "silent moral majority"[2], Mary Whitehouse,
it was "sickening and disgusting...I had to come out after twenty
minutes"[3]. To MPs such as Maurice Edelman, A Clockwork Orange was
an incitement to violent crime -- "...the adventures of the psychotic
Alix[sic] rampaging to music, are likely to have a more sinister effect on
those who see for the first time see a fantasy realised on the screen. -- a
fantasy of exciting violence."[4] But for the young themselves it was "a
subversive tribute to the glory of youth"[5]

What exactly was it about A Clockwork Orange that grabbed the
attention of the British public? Why did it cause such a controversy and
who was principally entwined within it? Over the course of this essay I
aim to discover the answers to these questions. In doing so I have
considered the various contributions of those who helped to shape this
controversy and to analyse the way in which this film was so unique. I
have examined the state of mind of the film industry, its regulators,
politicians as well as the public at the time A Clockwork Orange
was released. From the media and the reactionaries who called for its
censorship to the youth who adored it I have analysed the accusations and
defenses of its unsavory influence and aimed to discover if A Clockwork
Orange really was such a rotten fruit.

The Limits Of Permissiveness

The late 1950s and 1960s have been described by Arthur Marwick as marking
"a retreat from the social controls imposed in the Victorian era by
evangelicalism and non-conformity."[6] Indeed, there exist many examples
to prove that this era was one of liberal reform and social revolution.
The extent of liberal reform can be witnessed in "The Betting and Gaming
Act" of 1960, which legalized certain forms of gambling and led to street
betting shops, gambling clubs and Bingo. It can be seen in Home Secretary James
Callaghan's decision in 1969 to make the abolition of
capital punishment a permanent fixture[7]; and furthermore in 1967 when
supported by the government, and several Conservatives, the Liberal MP,
David Steel had put forward the "Abortion Act" which enabled a pregnant
woman a legal abortion on the mere evaluation of two doctors believing it
was necessary on medical and psychological grounds. The social and even
sexual revolution of the 1960s can be defined by legislation that made
divorce more easily attainable under the "Divorce Reform Act", the "Sexual
Offences Act" which no longer made a homosexual act between two consenting
adults an offense, and even the introduction of the Pill, which had the
effect of "contributing to a general sense of security for women and girls
and to a situation in which contraception (something no respectable girls
would have dreamt of mentioning ten years before) could be spoken of
openly"[8]. A picture of a more tolerant and liberal society seems
apparent.

From the fashion for miniskirts and hot-pants to the increased consumption
of illegal drugs like cannabis, amphetamines and LSD, through the words of
popular songs of the time to gang fights at the sea side -- and as a result
of the explicitness of certain theatre productions and the increased
promiscuity of the young -- it seemed as though a revolution had brought
about a permissive age. But was the revolution complete and had it
permeated all sections and all age groups in society? How far could
permissiveness go? A Clockwork Orange is an indicator which holds
some of the answers to these questions. It shows how the old morality
still remained and if the film is evidence of the radical Sixties then
reaction it received is evidence of the conservative Seventies.

"Up to the last war the Board clearly considered itself the guardian of
public morality, allowing no departure from the acceptable code of conduct
and behavior, the protector of the and image of the Britain in the other
countries and the protector of cinema audiences from such dangerous themes
as those involving controversial politics." Indeed the board claimed, "the
success of the cinematograph had been obtained by the fact that it was
clean and healthy to which ladies and children could go in safety."[9]

After The Second World War the arts in general enjoyed a sense of
liberalisation from this policy, which allowed film considerably more
freedom than before. The B.B.F.C. was evolving and consequently so was the
content of films showing in the cinema. The board introduced The "X"
certificate in 1951 to deal with films that were not "merely sordid films
dealing with unpleasant subjects, but films which while, not being
suitable for children, are good adult entertainment films which appeal to
an intelligent public".[10] This was in fact how the board perceived A
Clockwork Orange. However, during the early sixties there was a backlash
against this post-war liberalisation and people started to ask questions
about the direction that art was taking. These questions became, as we
shall see, increasingly more frequent so that by the time A Clockwork
Orange was released there existed a great deal still unanswered.

In 1960 the Conservative MP for Wimbledon, Sir Cyril Black, formed the
"Moral Law Defence Association", gaining the support of the Archbishop of
Canterbury and the moderator of the Free Church Council. The same year
another group "Youth Impact" was established to tackle "increasing
immorality" as well as the "London Committee Against Obscenity". These
committees although small and practically ineffectual were an indication
of the changing tide of reaction against what they saw as obscenity in the
arts.

Far more influential was "The Women of Britain Clean-up T.V. Campaign",
which later became "The viewers and Listeners' Association" with the
notorious Mary Whitehouse at its helm. "Although dismissed as cranky and
ineffectual, The campaign gathered force until by the late sixties its
voice was powerful enough to be influential at the BBC."[11]

Despite the emergence of these groups, the liberal opinion of the arts,
meanwhile, had encouraged the freeing of the theatre from prior censorship
under the Theatre Act of 1968. This act came under scrutiny when the play
"Oh! Calcutta!" was staged at "The Roundhouse" in 1970. Including nudity
and scenes of stimulated sexual behavior, it aroused instant protest from
many quarters. Mary Whitehouse, David Holbrook, then a lecturer at
Dartington Hall, the Dowager Lady Birdwood, founder of the V.A.L.A., and
Frank Smith, a non-conformist G.L.C. councillor all expressed their
disdain. In January 1970 the "underground" magazine "International Times"
was indicted for containing advertisements , "to induce readers to resort
to the said advertisers for the purpose of homosexual practices and
thereby to debauch and corrupt public morals". A further charge alleged
that the publishers had "conspired to outrage public decency by inserting
advertisements containing lewd, disgusting and offensive matter". In the
same month a series of lithographs by John Lennon were seized when the
London Art Gallery was raided. Following an initiative by John Trevelyan,
Warhol and Morrisey's "Flesh" was shown at the "Open Space Theatre" a few
days later. That was until 32 policeman descended on the theatre
collecting the screen, the film projector, as well as the names and
addresses of those who were present. Although neither of these cases led
to prosecutions the publicity that they encouraged led the Home Secretary
to announce to the House of Commons, March 12th 1970,

There is a great deal of pornography about that is causing a great deal
of concern to many people in this country...Broadly speaking, I want the
House to know that I shall support the police when they act in response to
the police in investigating these matters. It may be that, On occasions,
they will make mistakes of judgement, but I know perfectly well that the
country as a whole is extremely alarmed at what is going on in this field.

In the light of these events the Christian pressure groups united under
their banner of "The Festival of Light" seeking to inform the public of
what they saw as "moral pollution". Their route of attack headed them into
the direction of the cinema:

The Festival focused its challenge to 'permissiveness' almost entirely on
the mass media. The Cinema, forced to concentrate on adult themes,
represented a suitably large and vulnerable target. Unlike the television
companies, it had no spokesman to defend it, nor any mass public support
to fall back upon. It was an ideal symbol of the ills in society which the
Festival was now determined to expose and eradicate.[12]

What was to prove significant, in particularly, to the later censorship of
A Clockwork Orange, were the comments made by Lord Windlesham,
Minister of State at the Home Office, who told his peers in the Lords
about a circular he had sent to local Authorities, "reminding them of
powers they have concerning cinema licensing, and asking them to consider
whether they were making adequate use of these powers, with particular
reference to indecent or offensive advertisements for films."[13]

At the same time there developed a great deal of debate concerning the
emergent sex films which were being produced in Scandinavia, Germany and
America which by a loophole in the law via the "Cinematograph Act" and the
"Obscene Publications Act" were making an appearance in private cinemas in
London. The club loophole had long been a concern to governments formed by
both major parties. An indication of the neurosis of the time was
illustrated by Lord Ferrier who assured the House of Lords of a "Definite
link between international communism and the distribution to adolescents
of certain pornographic material."[14]

Furthermore, the surprise victory in the election of June 1970 was an
indication of the turn to the right that was evident at this time . It was
an encouraging sign to the anti-permissive groups. By September 1970 the
Archbishop of Canterbury was calling on Christians to unite and protest
against obscenity and blasphemy and so by September 25th, 1971 the
"Festival of Light" was able to attract 35,000 people to a meeting in
Trafalgar Square. The Festival's success was their ability to make local
authorities much more critical of the films they reviewed reminding them
of their powers over cinema licensing. Beforehand the local authorities
had been even more liberal than the B.B.F.C. From 1969-1971 they had
passed films rejected by the Board on some 150 occasions.

If this was the sea of moral panic into which A Clockwork Orange
was launched, it was not aided by advertisements that tended to focus on
the more sensational aspects of the film. The promotional poster depicted
the leading character, played by Malcolm McDowell, brandishing a knife and
a psychotic stare accompanied by the headline, "Being the adventures of a
young man whose principal interests are rape, ultra-violence and
Beethoven". Moreover, Adrienne Corri, who appeared in the film, confided
in the Sunday Mirror that she "was scared to see herself," since, "this
was violence beyond anything I ever imagined would appear on the screen."

There were other violent films released at the same time as A Clockwork
Orange. In some cases they were probably even more graphically violent. In
the film The Devils scenes of nuns in a nude orgy aroused enough
interest to lead L'Osservature Roman, the official newspaper of the
Vatican to pass comment. Furthermore, Straw Dogs led 13 critics of the
day to take the unprecedented step of writing to The Times to complain of
its unnecessary use of violence and double rape. However far from
distracting attention from A Clockwork Orange, films such as the
aforementioned mentioned, Soldier Blue, Witch-Finder General, The
Wild Bunch and Performance, only made anti-permissive groups more
determined to get to grips with A Clockwork Orange. As Guy Phelps
pointed out,

Having missed the boat where the indiscriminate violence of Straw Dogs
was concerned, all kinds of pressure groups, newspaper 'campaigns' and the
all-purpose commentators who were there in the media now latched onto A
Clockwork Orange as the current whipping boy for the industry's
irresponsibility.[15]

It is quite probable that under more normal circumstances A Clockwork
Orange would not have aroused so much controversy, but such as it was, the
scene had been set for the "Clockwork Controversy".

A Clockwork Orange -- What was it about?

A Clockwork Orange started its life as a novella written by the
English author Anthony Burgess. The first draft, written whilst Burgess
supposed he was dying of an inoperable cerebral tumor, presented the world
of adolescent violence and governmental retribution in the slang that was
current at the time among the hooligan groups known as the "Teddy boys"
and the "Mods and Rockers". In early 1961 in a fit bill of health and
realising that the slang of his earlier draft would soon be outdated, he
decided that the story properly belonged in the future. That year Burgess
spent part of the summer in Soviet Russia where he observed,

The authorities had problems with turbulent youth not much different from
our own. The Stilyagi, or style-boys, were smashing faces and
windows, and the police, apparently obsessed with ideological and fiscal
crimes, seemed powerless to keep them under control. It struck me that it
might be a good idea to create a young kind of hooligan who bestrode the
iron curtain and "spoke an argot compounded of the two most powerful political languages in
the world -- Anglo-American and Russian. The irony of the style would lie
in the hero-narrator being totally unpolitical.[16]

Rather than a "nasty little shocker" as the Times Literary section had
called it, what Burgess had tried to write "was as well as a novella, a
sort of allegory of Christian free will. Man is defined by his capacity to
choose courses of moral action. If he chooses good, he must have the
possibility of choosing evil instead. I was also saying that it is more
acceptable for us to perform evil acts than to be conditioned into an
ability only to perform what is socially acceptable"[17]

Even at this early stage A Clockwork Orange discovered its first
potential censor when Burgess' literary agent was unwilling to submit the
novella to a publisher alleging that its "pornography of violence would be
certain to make it unacceptable"[18]. Despite this the novella was sold to
William Heineman Limited in London and W. W. Norton Inc. in New York.

A view of what was to come was evident in the pop-following the novella
attracted. In New York and Los Angeles Burgess claims, "Rock-groups called
Clockwork Orange began to spring up" and the young interested in
the language of the book adopted it as a "genuine argot". Even the British
rock-group The Rolling Stones expressed an interest, in 1965, of
performing in a film version they envisaged Burgess writing.

The film version of the book happened almost by accident. Its director
Stanley Kubrick had been given a copy of the book which he had initially
put to one side. On the rebound from the cancellation of the production of
Napoleon he happened again on the copy and it made an immediate impact
on him. Kubrick said of his enthusiasm for the project "I was excited by
everything about it, the plot the ideas, the characters and of course the
language...The story functions, of course, on several levels, political,
sociological, philosophical and, what's most important, on a dreamlike
psychological-symbolic level". When Kubrick wrote the screenplay he made a
point of sticking very closely to the original text, "I think whatever
Burgess had to say about the story was said in the book but I did invent a
few useful narrative ideas and reshape some of the scenes."[19]

Although the novella had met its critics it was nothing compared to the
reaction the film was to receive. The more liberal period in the film
industry which prevailed out of the sixties permitted Kubrick to film such
graphic scenes of physical and sexual violence. In Burgess's mind, "It was
the dawn of the age of candid photography that enabled Kubrick to exploit,
to a serious end , those elements of the story which were meant to shock
morally rather than merely titillate"[20]. Burgess explains one of the
elementary reasons why The film itself was more of a "shocker" than the
book, "to tolchock a chelloveck in the kishkas does not sound so bad as
booting an old man in the guts...But in a film little can be implied;
everything has to be shown. Language ceases to be an opaque protection
against being appalled and takes a very secondary place"[21] Furthermore,
"The sheer power and brilliance of Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange
undoubtedly contributed to the outrage at the film. The images were so
effective that many viewers were led to believe that the film was more
explicitly violent than it was."[22]

But it was not just these scenes on their own that made A Clockwork
Orange so controversial, there was also an element of being in the
wrong place at the wrong time that added to its impact. There existed a
certain sense of inevitability that given the contemporary mood the film
was not going to be judged on its own merits, but put into a much larger
context of societal concerns. Since the 1950s more and more onus had been directed
towards the accountability of the power of films to influence their
spectators. Many had thought that the arts were going to far and they
needed to be checked. A Clockwork Orange was at the end of a long
line of hysteria that was bound to lead to its downfall.

Who Was Affected? -- The Clockwork Orange Controversy

Violence and crime were on the increase. The total figures for reported
crime in the sixties were as follows, "11,592 in 1960, 15,976 in 1964, and
21,046 in 1968".[23] In Northern Ireland the problems had gone from bad to
worse, forcing the problem of violence into the public conscience.
Continuous news reports of bloodshed and semi-warfare within the United
Kingdom had created a greater awareness of violence as a major problem in
society. As Marwick explains, "The most bitter year since the war of
confrontation between government and unions was certainly 1972: it was the
year of the IRA bomb outrage at Aldershot in which five civilians died;
and it was the first year since before the First World War in which a
picket had lost his life".[24] This situation is probably what drew the
Home Secretary Reginald Maudling, who had stated previously that he was
concerned about the connection between the rising crime rate and cinema
violence, into the Clockwork Orange controversy: "There is a new film out this week that I think I ought to go and see...If
things are being shown which one could reasonably suppose are contributing
to the degree of violence, I think I ought to know"[25]. Maudling was also
clearly aware of the liberalisation of the film industry and worried about
its effect on the growing wave of crime. "The British film board of
censors has done a really good job over the years. But I am disturbed
about the degree of violence which seems to be entering films...If I think
that this trend of films is doing harm to I ought to say."[26]

Having viewed the film at the Admiralty no press statement was issued, so
one might suspect he decided that A Clockwork Orange was unlikely
to cause any harm. However, it is more likely that he avoided comment on
the basis that if the Home Office was seen to appear dissatisfied with the
performance of the B.B.F.C. it would have undermined its credibility.
Moreover it is possible that he had never intended to intervene, but was
only doing so to appease certain pressure groups. However, Maudling's
contribution to the controversy had other far more reaching effects,

To single out for mention a specific film before it has appeared publicly
is certain to suggest to some people, among the more illiberal forces of
opinion, that the film merits the scrutiny of the minister responsible for
curbing the abuses of law and order.[27]

Rather more outspoken was Maurice Edelman, the Labour MP for Coventry West
and co-chairman of the All-Party Film Committee. Managing to accumulate 50
MPs and Peers to attend a showing of the film at a Soho Square Trade
cinema on 25th January 1972 he was quoted in the press,

The film stimulates for two and a half hours an appetite for sadistic
violence with the instantaneous communication which the visual arts
uniquely offer...I believe that when 'A Clockwork Orange' is
generally released, it will lead to a Clockwork cult which will magnify
teenage violence.[28]

If the sea of moral panic, which stemmed from the liberalisation of the
arts, and Maudling and Edelman's concern at the growing number of cases of
violence in the film industry, drew the focus towards A Clockwork
Orange, then the press put it directly into the spotlight. Through a
series of sensationalist reports and headlines it was clear that they aimed
to focus merely on the more "sordid" aspects of the film, it was pitched as
the, "FILM SHOCKER TO END THEM ALL"[29]. Ken Eastleigh reported in The
sun, "The star is Malcolm McDowell, who is seen in a speeded up sequence
having repeated sex with two dolly birds."[30] and further described the
film as, "unparalleled in its concentrated parade of violence, viciousness
and cruelty."

The problems really started when the press reported a spate of supposed
copy-cat crimes. The first and most famous of these was the case involving
a 16 year old boy called James Palmer who had beaten to death a tramp in
Oxfordshire. As Edward Laxton reported in the Daily Mirror, in a
convincing enough manner that the more reactionary reader might suspect
that, A Clockwork Orange was terrible enough to influence even the
most unassuming and hitherto quite innocent of young men, it was clear
that the press were going to make the film even more controversial. "The
terrifying violence of the film A Clockwork Orange fascinated a
quiet boy from a Grammar School...And it turned him into a brutal
murderer". Laxton continues, "The boy viciously battered to death a
harmless old tramp as he acted out in real life a scene straight from the
movie A Clockwork Orange"[31]

A Clockwork Orange began to be developed into an euphemism in the
press for referring to teenage crime and societal deviance. When a study
was undertaken to explore the deviance of 1565 youths aged between 12 and
17 by Dr. William Belson of The London School of Economics, The Daily Mail
reported, "it is the first to study the clockwork orange society in this
country."[32]

Although Burgess, in particular, jumped to the defence of the film
commenting, "No evidence has ever been adduced in a court of law to prove
beyond a doubt that a work of art can stimulate anti social behavior",[33]
the fact that a psychiatrist had told Oxford Crown Court, "It seems as if,
momentarily, the devil had been planted in the boys'
subconscious...planted their was ...the violence of A Clockwork
Orange"[34], it was inevitable that those who had reservations about A
Clockwork Orange were now convinced of its tragic effects.

Despite Burgess's continued efforts to point out that A Clockwork
Orange was being carried away on a storm of hysteria by commenting,
"The notorious murderer Haig who killed and drank their blood said he was
inspired by the sacrament of the Eucharist - Does that mean we should ban
the Bible?"[35], people in positions of authority were loathe to agree.
Reverend John Lambert, former chaplain to Pinewood studios commented in
the Evening News, "I am utterly convinced in my own mind -- and from talking to many young
people -- that this celluloid cesspool has done damage to more young people
than just the boy who beat out a meths drinkers brains with a brick".
Furthermore, just to add fuel to the case against A Clockwork
Orange the reverend threw rather an exaggerated attack at Stanley
Kubrick, "Old people tremble to go out of doors and young girls are abused
by bands of louts imitating your bizarre world."[36]

Despite the fact that James Palmer had never seen the film and his
knowledge of it came merely from his friends accounts, the ball was
rolling. Even the local pud landlord felt obliged to comment, "I see the
effects on youngsters who come in here afterwards and act out what they
have seen."[37] Mary Whitehouse determined, to see the film banned said,
"Since it has been shown we have witnessed muggings and the start of the
dreadful gang bang syndrome. One gets tired of the irrational, pretentious
arguments film makers use to defend their works."[38] Lord Soper, leader
of the Methodist Church in Britain commented "films like this tend to bring out the worst possible interests in people. It can only encourage
people into violence[39].

But not all those who one would expect to be on the side of the
anti-permissive groups were as scathing of A Clockwork Orange. John
E. Fitzgerald, writing in "The Catholic News, commented,

The film seems to say that to take away a man's choice is not to redeem
him but merely to restrain him. Otherwise we have a society of oranges,
organic but working like clock-work. Such brainwashing organic and
psychological, is a weapon, that to totalitarians in state, church or
society might wish for an easier good even at the cost of individual
rights and dignity. Redemption is a complicated thing and change must be
motivated from within rather than imposed from without if moral values are
to be upheld. But Kubrick is an artist rather than a moralist and he
leaves it to us to figure what's wrong and why, what should be done and
how it should be accomplished.[40]

Furthermore, the chairman of the Festival of Lights planning committee ,
Peter Thompson who had led the crusade against The Devils had a more
personal insight into the film which made him a fan. Thompson had been a
patient in Broadmoor's special hospital from 1965-69 and it lead him to
comment,

To someone who has committed violent acts of and who has been mentally
ill, this film has a lot to say to society. It is my honest opinion that
this is the best film I have ever seen. I felt like I was reliving my own
experiences. In Broadmoor they have drugs that bring you out in
rashes...Alex's aversion therapy seems to me to be the exact equivalent to
900mg of Largatil.

If the effect of A Clockwork Orange of corrupting the young and
innocent was seemingly apparent in the James Palmer case the press
exploited some other less convincing cases to back-up their clockwork
orange theory. One such case was of a sinister character who murdered a 79
year old woman who was according to the Daily Mail, "praying at her
friend's grave side". The culprit however, was, it has to be said, not of
particularly sound mind and judgement judging by his comments to the
police, "Sometimes I think I am Jack the Ripper, a vampire or something
like that"[41]. Despite the police report's allegation that he got the
idea from A Clockwork Orange it seems inevitable that this man
would have ended up in prison due to the influence of his imagination
without A Clockwork Orange.

Cases were springing up all over the country leading judges to conclude
that even minor assault charges had something to do with the effect of
A Clockwork Orange. When a 15 year old boy was assaulted by another, a
year his senior, in Heywood Lancashire, judge Desmond Bailey said that
A Clockwork Orange presented "an unassailable argument for a
return to censorship."[42] Mike Purdy who worked at the "Old Bailey" for
the Metropolitan Police solicitors provides a different angle, however, on
these cases:

At the 'Old Bailey' we kept seeing people on assault charges who had seen
the film and been impelled to go out and beat someone up. Most of us who
worked at the court thought this a load of rubbish but unfortunately such
cases got a lot of publicity and many judges would impose lesser sentences
in these cases. It got to the stage when we referred to these cases as
'Clockwork Orange defenses' and it came almost boring as one after another
tried using this excuse.[43]

It seems that even the police were carried away by the "Clockwork Orange"
hysteria. When Frank Boulton a 50 year old wood seller was murdered in
Newton-le-Williams in May 1973, despite no evidence to support their
rationale, detectives started a search for a "Clockwork Orange Gang". A
police spokesman said, "Teenagers in Newton-le Williams have been buying
similar make up and dress to that used in the film. Special squads have
been detailed to check out fancy dress shops in the area...The comparison
with facts in the film are being followed up as a strong line of inquiry".
These comparisons are recounted to the reader in the same article, in the
Daily Mail's own inimitable style, "In the film A Clockwork Orange,
banned in some towns because of its violence, a kinky group of teenagers
in fancy dress savagely attack an old tramp, leaving him for dead."[44]

This wave of hysteria even affected local authorities who had the task of
deciding whether or not A Clockwork Orange should be shown in their
cinemas. All sorts of committees were banning the film, public health and
licensing committees, fire brigade committees. All of them were unfit to
pass judgement on films, particularly in this situation of media
sensationalism. In one such case in Hastings in February 1973, A
Clockwork Orange was ruled unfit for viewing after being seen by only
two members of the Public Health and Licensing committee. Although one of
them did not even see the whole film it was described as, "violence for
its own sake". The local press condemned their decision in a way that
spoke for all these local committees, "It is wrong that the public should
be treated like schoolchildren by a handful of fickle councilors whose
tastes are not in any way representative of the people they are elected to
represent"[45]

The ludicrous treatment of A Clockwork Orange hit its height when
Dr. Malcolm Carruthers, senior lecture in Chemical Pathology at St. Mary's
Hospital Medical School, and Dr. Peter Taggart, lecturer in Medicine at
Middlesex Hospital monitored the reactions of 34 doctors nurses,
colleagues and friends whilst watching the film. Monitoring heartbeats
during the film and carrying out tests before and after the viewing , the
results were published the following day in the "Daily Telegraph" under
the headline, "Viewers' Hearts Slowed by A Clockwork Orange".

So how did all this effect the youngsters? Were they really affected in
the way that the moral majority feared? It appears not. In fact the youth
of the day saw A Clockwork Orange in a completely different light.
What they saw was a representation of a life they already lived. In
working class urban areas the violence and the tribal identity of Alex and
his droogs was a reflection of football hooliganism, gang fighting and
loyalty to your friends and team. Tony Parsons explains, "A Clockwork
Orange was like seeing your little life blown up and put on the big
screen. It took all the consolations of being a teenager in the early
70s...and made them mythical, monumental, glorious."[46]

Most working-class youths referred to themselves as "Suedeheads" due to
their closely cropped hair styles. "Ben Sherman" shirts, "Levis Sta-press"
trousers, 6 hole polished "Dr.Martin" boots and braces were the essential
cladder of the day. Alex and his droogs were just as particular about what
they wore, "the thin braces, the white strides, the rakish use of hats,
the combat boots as combined fashion accessory and blunt instrument. It
was all there. Someone had been paying attention. And we were flattered
beyond belief."[47]

True to the film advertisements, it was the film that youngsters had been
waiting for, everybody knew about it, "we saw the film and then we read
the book and then we saw the film again. And even the lads who never read
books - the thickos , the hard-core thugs, the dims made flesh, blood and
bone - all read Burgess' black masterpiece."[48] But did it make them more
violent?

Mic Martin, a suedehead and fan of "A Clockwork Orange", whose
friends Zac, Col and Sav saw themselves in Alex and his droogs said, "No,
definitely not. May be it was a validation of our lifestyles, but we were
not about to rape or kill anyone. We had seen our fair share of violence
both on the giving and receiving end, but it wasn't about beating people
up, it was about fighting other groups, allegiance to your football team
or protecting your friends, whether or not A Clockwork Orange had
been made, this would have gone on regardless. The film was just a
stylised version of the lives we were leading."[49]

It would seem, therefore, the violence that the press predicted would
entice the young, was already a part of the young's lives.

"It was a violent film for violent days ...I saw truncheons coming down on
number two crops, away fans invading the home fans' end and trying to take
it, bodies tumbling down terraces, feet and fists flying as one of those
sickening gaps appeared in the crowd to give violence some room...,the
football grounds of England in the early 70s played host to weekly rots.
So the highly ritualised violence in 'A Clockwork Orange' did not
shock us. We could get all that at home."[50]

The concept of A Clockwork Orange as a morality tale was also lost
on the youth, but Parsons believes, "as we brooded in Ted Heath's Britain,
we didn't feel we had any choices. A morality tale? Perhaps, but 'A
Clockwork Orange had a moral heart. It was a subversive tribute to the
glory of youth." Moreover, its appeal was its authenticity: "A
Clockwork Orange was about our Britain. Not the country of someone
else's mythology -- The Blitz spirit of World War II, the saucy charm of
the swinging 60s -- but the way we were. Fishfingers and football pools
and furniture that was a fire hazard. Parents that were losing their grip
and politicians that couldn't get you to turn up. Authority was crumbling
on every side and teenage rebellion was turning nasty. If they attached
electrodes to Alex's brain then that didn't seem so far fetched in Ted's
divided nation."[51] The fact that A Clockwork Orange was so adored
by a large number of the young, probably added to the fears of the moral
majority.

Although Kubrick never thought that A Clockwork Orange was likely
to influence it viewers enough to carry out copy-cat crime, he became
increasingly more fed up with the controversy which he saw to be aimed in
his direction. Due to reports in the press of the inevitability of a
clockwork cult, he had delayed the general release of the film so that it
ran merely in one West End cinema for a year before it went on general
release . It had not worked. After 61 weeks of showing, Kubrick decided to
ban A Clockwork Orange in Britain completely. When in November 1973
a Dutch tourist had been raped by a group of youths whilst singing,
"Singing in the Rain" it appeared to many that he had done the right thing.

Conclusion

Whether or not A Clockwork Orange should have been banned is a
tricky matter. As we have seen the influence of the cinema to corrupt its
viewers has caused much debate. Those in the anti-permissive leagues gave
much credence to reports in the press of copy-cat crime, but we have seen
that these links were often tenuous. The judges who saw case after case
of "Clockwork crimes" were sure that A Clockwork Orange was to
blame, yet Mike Purdy showed us the contrary. So where can we turn? A film
expert, Claude Chabrol, gives his opinion,

Of course everybody is worried about screen violence, of course everybody
stigmatises it. What nobody seems to point out is that screen violence
opens up dark corners and expresses to public scrutiny a side of life that
might otherwise remain hidden...Occasionally, film can open people's eyes.
Do violent films incite violence? I don't believe a word of it. Since
Aristotle's day, it is common knowledge that people go to public
entertainments to purge their baser instincts, and they return home
calmer. They are liberated not corrupted, by the screen depiction of
criminal perversions."[52]

Ironically the most outspoken critic of the theory that art corrupts,
Anthony Burgess, had a surprising change of mind . In march 1993, six
months before his death, addressing public anxiety about a "cult of
violence" in the wake of the James Bulger murder, he performed a
remarkable volte-force,

It must be considered a kind of grace in my old age to abandon a
conviction that the arts were sacrosanct, and that included the sub-arts,
that they would never be accused of exerting either a moral or immoral
influence, that they were incorrupt, incorruptive, incorruptible. I have
quite recently changed my mind...I begin to accept that as a novelist, I
belong to the ranks of the menacing.[53]

It seems clear that A Clockwork Orange need not have been the
sensation that it was. The liberalisation of the arts after World War II
led directors to push the boundaries of what was acceptable in the cinema.
But there were more violent films than A Clockwork Orange and
unlike these films A Clockwork Orange's violence was not violence
for violence sake, but as Kubrick states, "absolutely necessary to give
weight to Alex's Brutality".[54] It is inevitable that shocking films will
cause complaint, but not as much as was received by A Clockwork
Orange. Had the film been released in a different time when
politicians had not been so neurotic and groups like V.A.L.A and people
like Mary Whitehouse hadn't been given so much coverage then it might have
passed by with little notice. Furthermore, being that it was set in
England with English actors, gave it much more authenticity and therefore
much more attraction. Had the country been unspecified and the actors
american then much concern would have been deflected. Moreover, the press
can be held very much responsible for their part in making the Clockwork
Controversy. "It is only in Britain that A Clockwork Orange was
subjected to a campaign of vilification in the press. It is only in
Britain that Stanley Kubrick had decreed that the film may not be shown in
the cinemas. These two facts are not presumably unconnected"[55]

So was A Clockwork Orange really a rotten fruit? To many it seems
that it was. But had it avoided sensationalising in the press and evaded
the moral crusade of politicians and the Mary Whitehouses of the
reactionary cause, it is quite possible that Burgess and Kubrick's story
could have rode the waves of controversy and still be showing in cinemas
today.

References:

1. John Trevelyan, Chairman of the B.B.F.C. (1956-1971), in The Times
(London), 8/3/73.

2. Julian Petty - "Index on Censorship". Volume 24. Number 6. 1995.

3. Daily Mail 8/24/73

4. Evening News 1/27/72.

5. Tony Parsons, Movie Heaven, p.96

6. Arthur Marwick, British Society Since 1945, (London, 1982), p.145

7. It had previously been abolished only for a 5 year trial period by an
Act of Parliament in October 1965.

54. "Otherwise there would be moral confusion with respect to what the
government does to him. If he were a lesser villain, then one could
say:'Oh, yes, of course, he should not be given this psychological
conditioning; it is all too horrible and he really wasn't that bad after
all.' On the other hand, when you have shown him committing such atrocious
acts, and you still realise the immense evil on the part of the government
in turning him into something less than human in order to make him good,
then I think the essential moral idea of the story is clear." --
Kubrick, from the interview with Strick & Houston, Sight&Sound, Spring
1972.